Canon 10D vs 20D?
Last response: in Digital Camera
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Hi all,
Can anyone here who's upgraded from the 10D to the 20D comment on the
improvement (if any) in AF speed / accuracy & RAW buffering?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Can anyone here who's upgraded from the 10D to the 20D comment on the
improvement (if any) in AF speed / accuracy & RAW buffering?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
More about : canon 10d 20d
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
I only owned my 10D for 4 months and I owned the 20D for two of those
months. The 10D is a very capable camera but the thing that made me
change was the startup time as I shoot mostly wildlife. The delay at
startup once the camera went to sleep didn't work for me with the 10D.
I feel the 20D has slightly better color accuracy and contrast, less
noise at all ISO speeds but really noticable above 400 ISO.
I don't find the AF speed to be much different and the buffer and write
speed are better with the 20D. I also like the overall look of my
images with the 20D better but I did take some excellent images with
the 10D. There are people with more experience with both bodies but
these are my observations.
Art Salmons
I only owned my 10D for 4 months and I owned the 20D for two of those
months. The 10D is a very capable camera but the thing that made me
change was the startup time as I shoot mostly wildlife. The delay at
startup once the camera went to sleep didn't work for me with the 10D.
I feel the 20D has slightly better color accuracy and contrast, less
noise at all ISO speeds but really noticable above 400 ISO.
I don't find the AF speed to be much different and the buffer and write
speed are better with the 20D. I also like the overall look of my
images with the 20D better but I did take some excellent images with
the 10D. There are people with more experience with both bodies but
these are my observations.
Art Salmons
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
One last thing. I shoot wildlife and mostly birds. I do shoot rapid
sequences of pictures and with the 20D I never have had the camera stop
in mid sequence. Unlike with sports where your subject may be capable
of being photographed for a long series of rapid exposures with birds
the longest burst is usually 5 to 6 images and then it's gone. Both the
10D and 20D will do this but the 20D is just more capable and is rated
higher in write and buffer speed and it's true.
I've taken images with the 20D regularly at ISO 800 and I get get
terrific pictures. At 1600 ISO I still get decent pictures. With the
10D ISO 400 was used often but I rarely used 800 and never 1600.
Art
One last thing. I shoot wildlife and mostly birds. I do shoot rapid
sequences of pictures and with the 20D I never have had the camera stop
in mid sequence. Unlike with sports where your subject may be capable
of being photographed for a long series of rapid exposures with birds
the longest burst is usually 5 to 6 images and then it's gone. Both the
10D and 20D will do this but the 20D is just more capable and is rated
higher in write and buffer speed and it's true.
I've taken images with the 20D regularly at ISO 800 and I get get
terrific pictures. At 1600 ISO I still get decent pictures. With the
10D ISO 400 was used often but I rarely used 800 and never 1600.
Art
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
I just started shootng raw recently so most of my experience is with
the highest level Jpeg.
Art
I just started shootng raw recently so most of my experience is with
the highest level Jpeg.
Art
Related ressources
- Astrophoto Canon 10D vs . 20D - Forum
- 10D upgrade to 20D worth it? - Forum
- Canon EOS 20D . vs . 350D - Forum
- Canon RebleXT vs . 20D ? - Forum
- D70 vs 10D - Forum
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
"Fyimo" <arthurw@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1109601949.169529.243180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> One last thing. I shoot wildlife and mostly birds. I do shoot rapid
> sequences of pictures and with the 20D I never have had the camera stop
> in mid sequence. Unlike with sports where your subject may be capable
> of being photographed for a long series of rapid exposures with birds
> the longest burst is usually 5 to 6 images and then it's gone. Both the
> 10D and 20D will do this but the 20D is just more capable and is rated
> higher in write and buffer speed and it's true.
> I've taken images with the 20D regularly at ISO 800 and I get get
> terrific pictures. At 1600 ISO I still get decent pictures. With the
> 10D ISO 400 was used often but I rarely used 800 and never 1600.
>
Are you shooting JPG or RAW? With my 10D I can shoot 9 RAW images at 3
images per second or so and then I have to wait for some of the buffer to be
written to the card before I can take another shot. I thought the 20D could
only take 5 RAW images before the buffer was full, but it is supposed to
write faster than the 10D.
Ron
"Fyimo" <arthurw@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1109601949.169529.243180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> One last thing. I shoot wildlife and mostly birds. I do shoot rapid
> sequences of pictures and with the 20D I never have had the camera stop
> in mid sequence. Unlike with sports where your subject may be capable
> of being photographed for a long series of rapid exposures with birds
> the longest burst is usually 5 to 6 images and then it's gone. Both the
> 10D and 20D will do this but the 20D is just more capable and is rated
> higher in write and buffer speed and it's true.
> I've taken images with the 20D regularly at ISO 800 and I get get
> terrific pictures. At 1600 ISO I still get decent pictures. With the
> 10D ISO 400 was used often but I rarely used 800 and never 1600.
>
Are you shooting JPG or RAW? With my 10D I can shoot 9 RAW images at 3
images per second or so and then I have to wait for some of the buffer to be
written to the card before I can take another shot. I thought the 20D could
only take 5 RAW images before the buffer was full, but it is supposed to
write faster than the 10D.
Ron
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
"Ron Recer" <ron48@aol.com> wrote in
news:38hk9cF5p1oh8U1@individual.net:
>
> Are you shooting JPG or RAW? With my 10D I can shoot 9 RAW images at
> 3 images per second or so and then I have to wait for some of the
> buffer to be written to the card before I can take another shot. I
> thought the 20D could only take 5 RAW images before the buffer was
> full, but it is supposed to write faster than the 10D.
>
> Ron
Actually the 20D is 5FPS with a 25 frame/image buffer whereas the 10D
is 3FPS wiht a 9 frame/image buffer.
"Ron Recer" <ron48@aol.com> wrote in
news:38hk9cF5p1oh8U1@individual.net:
>
> Are you shooting JPG or RAW? With my 10D I can shoot 9 RAW images at
> 3 images per second or so and then I have to wait for some of the
> buffer to be written to the card before I can take another shot. I
> thought the 20D could only take 5 RAW images before the buffer was
> full, but it is supposed to write faster than the 10D.
>
> Ron
Actually the 20D is 5FPS with a 25 frame/image buffer whereas the 10D
is 3FPS wiht a 9 frame/image buffer.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
I bought my 10D in August 2003 and my 20D in late December 2004. Since
getting the 20D my 10D has not been used and I haven't regretted making the
upgrade.
AF speed is good and I haven't had any accuracy problems. RAW buffering
hasn't been a problem to me as I rarely shoot fast sequences, though it
would seem that with the 20D's vastly improved writing speed it must be
better than the 10D even if the actual buffer is supposedly smaller.
The main improvements as far as I'm concerned are instant on and instant
playback. Instant on is just that, which certainly beats having to wait for
the 10D to turn on every time the meter times out. Instant playback is
virtually always instant (at least with a fast card), which is a great help
because it means that even with action shots it's possible to check the
histogram and tweak the exposure while shooting without too much fear of
losing a shot.
The larger image file does add some extra detail and while it's not a huge
difference it's enough to be worth having.
The new battery certainly has greater capacity and adds considerably to the
number of shots between charges.
I really prefer noise-free images but sometimes the conditions mean that
ISO100 isn't practical. With the 20D I'm reasonably happy to shoot at 400,
whereas with the 10D I was always a little doubtful. I know some insist on
shooting at 3200 and then moan about banding, but if you're conservative
with the ISO I doubt that you would be disappointed with 400 and may even
find 800 quite acceptable.
The CR2 RAW format does seem to provide a bit more latitude and brighter
colours than CRW, but that's pretty subjective.
Geoff Bryant
www.cfgphoto.com
"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> wrote in message
news:n405215qk1vsrdkscmore0h90nda4svshq@4ax.com...
> Hi all,
>
> Can anyone here who's upgraded from the 10D to the 20D comment on the
> improvement (if any) in AF speed / accuracy & RAW buffering?
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
I bought my 10D in August 2003 and my 20D in late December 2004. Since
getting the 20D my 10D has not been used and I haven't regretted making the
upgrade.
AF speed is good and I haven't had any accuracy problems. RAW buffering
hasn't been a problem to me as I rarely shoot fast sequences, though it
would seem that with the 20D's vastly improved writing speed it must be
better than the 10D even if the actual buffer is supposedly smaller.
The main improvements as far as I'm concerned are instant on and instant
playback. Instant on is just that, which certainly beats having to wait for
the 10D to turn on every time the meter times out. Instant playback is
virtually always instant (at least with a fast card), which is a great help
because it means that even with action shots it's possible to check the
histogram and tweak the exposure while shooting without too much fear of
losing a shot.
The larger image file does add some extra detail and while it's not a huge
difference it's enough to be worth having.
The new battery certainly has greater capacity and adds considerably to the
number of shots between charges.
I really prefer noise-free images but sometimes the conditions mean that
ISO100 isn't practical. With the 20D I'm reasonably happy to shoot at 400,
whereas with the 10D I was always a little doubtful. I know some insist on
shooting at 3200 and then moan about banding, but if you're conservative
with the ISO I doubt that you would be disappointed with 400 and may even
find 800 quite acceptable.
The CR2 RAW format does seem to provide a bit more latitude and brighter
colours than CRW, but that's pretty subjective.
Geoff Bryant
www.cfgphoto.com
"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> wrote in message
news:n405215qk1vsrdkscmore0h90nda4svshq@4ax.com...
> Hi all,
>
> Can anyone here who's upgraded from the 10D to the 20D comment on the
> improvement (if any) in AF speed / accuracy & RAW buffering?
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Art & Geoff, thanks for the info, it's been very helpful.![:)]( ":)")
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Art & Geoff, thanks for the info, it's been very helpful.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Nunnya Bizniss <nunnya@yobizniss.com> wrote in
news:Xns960BB6E1C1347nunnyayobiznisscom@216.196.97.131:
> "Ron Recer" <ron48@aol.com> wrote in
> news:38hk9cF5p1oh8U1@individual.net:
>
>>
>> Are you shooting JPG or RAW? With my 10D I can shoot 9 RAW images at
>> 3 images per second or so and then I have to wait for some of the
>> buffer to be written to the card before I can take another shot. I
>> thought the 20D could only take 5 RAW images before the buffer was
>> full, but it is supposed to write faster than the 10D.
>>
>> Ron
>
> Actually the 20D is 5FPS with a 25 frame/image buffer whereas the 10D
> is 3FPS wiht a 9 frame/image buffer.
According to Canon the 20D only has a 6 frame buffer on the 20D for RAW
images, are you sure that you are not confusing RAW with JPG?
--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 20-Jan-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Nunnya Bizniss <nunnya@yobizniss.com> wrote in
news:Xns960BB6E1C1347nunnyayobiznisscom@216.196.97.131:
> "Ron Recer" <ron48@aol.com> wrote in
> news:38hk9cF5p1oh8U1@individual.net:
>
>>
>> Are you shooting JPG or RAW? With my 10D I can shoot 9 RAW images at
>> 3 images per second or so and then I have to wait for some of the
>> buffer to be written to the card before I can take another shot. I
>> thought the 20D could only take 5 RAW images before the buffer was
>> full, but it is supposed to write faster than the 10D.
>>
>> Ron
>
> Actually the 20D is 5FPS with a 25 frame/image buffer whereas the 10D
> is 3FPS wiht a 9 frame/image buffer.
According to Canon the 20D only has a 6 frame buffer on the 20D for RAW
images, are you sure that you are not confusing RAW with JPG?
--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 20-Jan-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
"MarkH" <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote in message
news:klOUd.3384325$B07.531092@news.easynews.com...
> Nunnya Bizniss <nunnya@yobizniss.com> wrote in
> news:Xns960BB6E1C1347nunnyayobiznisscom@216.196.97.131:
>
> > "Ron Recer" <ron48@aol.com> wrote in
> > news:38hk9cF5p1oh8U1@individual.net:
> >
> >>
> >> Are you shooting JPG or RAW? With my 10D I can shoot 9 RAW images at
> >> 3 images per second or so and then I have to wait for some of the
> >> buffer to be written to the card before I can take another shot. I
> >> thought the 20D could only take 5 RAW images before the buffer was
> >> full, but it is supposed to write faster than the 10D.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >
> > Actually the 20D is 5FPS with a 25 frame/image buffer whereas the 10D
> > is 3FPS wiht a 9 frame/image buffer.
>
> According to Canon the 20D only has a 6 frame buffer on the 20D for RAW
> images, are you sure that you are not confusing RAW with JPG?
>
That is what I recalled, that the 20D's buffer held fewer RAW frames than
the 10D's buffer. What I haven't heard is whether the 20D's faster write
rate makes up for the difference. I have heard people say they can take
40-45 JPG files before having to wait for a file to be written from buffer
to card, but haven't heard much about the RAW.
Ron
"MarkH" <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote in message
news:klOUd.3384325$B07.531092@news.easynews.com...
> Nunnya Bizniss <nunnya@yobizniss.com> wrote in
> news:Xns960BB6E1C1347nunnyayobiznisscom@216.196.97.131:
>
> > "Ron Recer" <ron48@aol.com> wrote in
> > news:38hk9cF5p1oh8U1@individual.net:
> >
> >>
> >> Are you shooting JPG or RAW? With my 10D I can shoot 9 RAW images at
> >> 3 images per second or so and then I have to wait for some of the
> >> buffer to be written to the card before I can take another shot. I
> >> thought the 20D could only take 5 RAW images before the buffer was
> >> full, but it is supposed to write faster than the 10D.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >
> > Actually the 20D is 5FPS with a 25 frame/image buffer whereas the 10D
> > is 3FPS wiht a 9 frame/image buffer.
>
> According to Canon the 20D only has a 6 frame buffer on the 20D for RAW
> images, are you sure that you are not confusing RAW with JPG?
>
That is what I recalled, that the 20D's buffer held fewer RAW frames than
the 10D's buffer. What I haven't heard is whether the 20D's faster write
rate makes up for the difference. I have heard people say they can take
40-45 JPG files before having to wait for a file to be written from buffer
to card, but haven't heard much about the RAW.
Ron
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
I owned both and you are dead wrong. The Canon 20D is slighly better in
most all areas and the instant on feature is light years better.
Art
I owned both and you are dead wrong. The Canon 20D is slighly better in
most all areas and the instant on feature is light years better.
Art
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
JPS@no.komm wrote:
> I missed many shots with the 10D because it wasn't ready; this hasn't
> happened to me with the 20D yet. The 20D can write to a fast card
> several times faster than the 10D can.
I'm still recovering from the shock at just how wickedly fast the
1DMkII is. I mean, the "review" image comes up almost immediately and
there is barely a blip on the "busy" LED for JPEG images. RAW image
times are faster on this than a JPEG recording on the 10D. But the
review/selection user-interface is ghastly (the 10D is much nicer); is
the 20D like the 10D or something completely different?
JPS@no.komm wrote:
> I missed many shots with the 10D because it wasn't ready; this hasn't
> happened to me with the 20D yet. The 20D can write to a fast card
> several times faster than the 10D can.
I'm still recovering from the shock at just how wickedly fast the
1DMkII is. I mean, the "review" image comes up almost immediately and
there is barely a blip on the "busy" LED for JPEG images. RAW image
times are faster on this than a JPEG recording on the 10D. But the
review/selection user-interface is ghastly (the 10D is much nicer); is
the 20D like the 10D or something completely different?
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Lionel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Can anyone here who's upgraded from the 10D to the 20D comment on the
> improvement (if any) in AF speed / accuracy & RAW buffering?
>
The 10D is a "better" camera. Somehow Canon have managed to produce an
upgrade which is actually worse than it's predecessor in far too many
ways. Shutter shudder is the most noticeable worsening. I guess that's
why they provided better high ISO performance - you have to use higher
shutter speeds!
There's more but I can't be bothered whining to this bunch of Canonites.
GH
Lionel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Can anyone here who's upgraded from the 10D to the 20D comment on the
> improvement (if any) in AF speed / accuracy & RAW buffering?
>
The 10D is a "better" camera. Somehow Canon have managed to produce an
upgrade which is actually worse than it's predecessor in far too many
ways. Shutter shudder is the most noticeable worsening. I guess that's
why they provided better high ISO performance - you have to use higher
shutter speeds!
There's more but I can't be bothered whining to this bunch of Canonites.
GH
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
In article <42242335$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Graham Hunt
<million_pics@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The 10D is a "better" camera. Somehow Canon have managed to produce an
> upgrade which is actually worse than it's predecessor in far too many
> ways. Shutter shudder is the most noticeable worsening. I guess that's
> why they provided better high ISO performance - you have to use higher
> shutter speeds!
>
> There's more but I can't be bothered whining to this bunch of Canonites.
"Shutter shudder" - now there's a new one.
Have fun with your Sigma.
In article <42242335$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Graham Hunt
<million_pics@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The 10D is a "better" camera. Somehow Canon have managed to produce an
> upgrade which is actually worse than it's predecessor in far too many
> ways. Shutter shudder is the most noticeable worsening. I guess that's
> why they provided better high ISO performance - you have to use higher
> shutter speeds!
>
> There's more but I can't be bothered whining to this bunch of Canonites.
"Shutter shudder" - now there's a new one.
Have fun with your Sigma.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Graham Hunt wrote:
> ways. Shutter shudder is the most noticeable worsening. I guess that's
Speaking from experience?
Graham Hunt wrote:
> ways. Shutter shudder is the most noticeable worsening. I guess that's
Speaking from experience?
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
"Graham Hunt" <million_pics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42242335$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Lionel wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Can anyone here who's upgraded from the 10D to the 20D comment on the
>> improvement (if any) in AF speed / accuracy & RAW buffering?
>>
> The 10D is a "better" camera. Somehow Canon have managed to produce an
> upgrade which is actually worse than it's predecessor in far too many
> ways. Shutter shudder is the most noticeable worsening. I guess that's why
> they provided better high ISO performance - you have to use higher shutter
> speeds!
>
> There's more but I can't be bothered whining to this bunch of Canonites.
>
> GH
Wow, that's succinct. But wrong. We owned a 10D, and have two 20Ds, and
the only thing the 10D had an edge on was RAW buffer (why Canon reduced that
is a mystery), a Custom Function that cancels Fill Flash Reduction
(considering the vagaries of the "new and improved" ETT-L II metering,
that's really a mystery why Canon removed that one!) and a very slightly
quieter shutter. In fact, I'm taking peoples word for this, I never noticed
a difference. On the other hand, focus is faster, more accurate, in both
normal and low light, frame rate is significantly faster, JPEG buffer is
significantly larger, automatic white balance more accurate, and several
other minor improvements.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Graham Hunt" <million_pics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42242335$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Lionel wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Can anyone here who's upgraded from the 10D to the 20D comment on the
>> improvement (if any) in AF speed / accuracy & RAW buffering?
>>
> The 10D is a "better" camera. Somehow Canon have managed to produce an
> upgrade which is actually worse than it's predecessor in far too many
> ways. Shutter shudder is the most noticeable worsening. I guess that's why
> they provided better high ISO performance - you have to use higher shutter
> speeds!
>
> There's more but I can't be bothered whining to this bunch of Canonites.
>
> GH
Wow, that's succinct. But wrong. We owned a 10D, and have two 20Ds, and
the only thing the 10D had an edge on was RAW buffer (why Canon reduced that
is a mystery), a Custom Function that cancels Fill Flash Reduction
(considering the vagaries of the "new and improved" ETT-L II metering,
that's really a mystery why Canon removed that one!) and a very slightly
quieter shutter. In fact, I'm taking peoples word for this, I never noticed
a difference. On the other hand, focus is faster, more accurate, in both
normal and low light, frame rate is significantly faster, JPEG buffer is
significantly larger, automatic white balance more accurate, and several
other minor improvements.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
In message <38hk9cF5p1oh8U1@individual.net>,
"Ron Recer" <ron48@aol.com> wrote:
>Are you shooting JPG or RAW? With my 10D I can shoot 9 RAW images at 3
>images per second or so and then I have to wait for some of the buffer to be
>written to the card before I can take another shot. I thought the 20D could
>only take 5 RAW images before the buffer was full, but it is supposed to
>write faster than the 10D.
The 10D buffers 9 images vs the 20D's 9, but it takes forever to empty
the buffer and make room for more, especially if the card is almost
full. In practice, the 20D is much more responsive to rapid shooting.
I missed many shots with the 10D because it wasn't ready; this hasn't
happened to me with the 20D yet. The 20D can write to a fast card
several times faster than the 10D can.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
In message <38hk9cF5p1oh8U1@individual.net>,
"Ron Recer" <ron48@aol.com> wrote:
>Are you shooting JPG or RAW? With my 10D I can shoot 9 RAW images at 3
>images per second or so and then I have to wait for some of the buffer to be
>written to the card before I can take another shot. I thought the 20D could
>only take 5 RAW images before the buffer was full, but it is supposed to
>write faster than the 10D.
The 10D buffers 9 images vs the 20D's 9, but it takes forever to empty
the buffer and make room for more, especially if the card is almost
full. In practice, the 20D is much more responsive to rapid shooting.
I missed many shots with the 10D because it wasn't ready; this hasn't
happened to me with the 20D yet. The 20D can write to a fast card
several times faster than the 10D can.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
In message <klOUd.3384325$B07.531092@news.easynews.com>,
MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>According to Canon the 20D only has a 6 frame buffer on the 20D for RAW
>images, are you sure that you are not confusing RAW with JPG?
I'm sure every shot goes into the buffer as a RAW; the difference
between RAW and various JPEG file sizes is in the write to the card.
With small, coarse JPEGs I think you can pretty much fill a fast card
machine-gun style.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
In message <klOUd.3384325$B07.531092@news.easynews.com>,
MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>According to Canon the 20D only has a 6 frame buffer on the 20D for RAW
>images, are you sure that you are not confusing RAW with JPG?
I'm sure every shot goes into the buffer as a RAW; the difference
between RAW and various JPEG file sizes is in the write to the card.
With small, coarse JPEGs I think you can pretty much fill a fast card
machine-gun style.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:usp9215buuac80qclja9o6qgrc5e8jhqvs@4ax.com...
> In message <klOUd.3384325$B07.531092@news.easynews.com>,
> MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>
>>According to Canon the 20D only has a 6 frame buffer on the 20D for RAW
>>images, are you sure that you are not confusing RAW with JPG?
>
> I'm sure every shot goes into the buffer as a RAW; the difference
> between RAW and various JPEG file sizes is in the write to the card.
> With small, coarse JPEGs I think you can pretty much fill a fast card
> machine-gun style.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Nope, they're correct, the JPEG buffer is approx. 23 frames, the RAW buffer
is 6 on the 20D. The RAW buffer on the 10D is 9
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:usp9215buuac80qclja9o6qgrc5e8jhqvs@4ax.com...
> In message <klOUd.3384325$B07.531092@news.easynews.com>,
> MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>
>>According to Canon the 20D only has a 6 frame buffer on the 20D for RAW
>>images, are you sure that you are not confusing RAW with JPG?
>
> I'm sure every shot goes into the buffer as a RAW; the difference
> between RAW and various JPEG file sizes is in the write to the card.
> With small, coarse JPEGs I think you can pretty much fill a fast card
> machine-gun style.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Nope, they're correct, the JPEG buffer is approx. 23 frames, the RAW buffer
is 6 on the 20D. The RAW buffer on the 10D is 9
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
In message <1109717397.725909.37150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"eawckyegcy@yahoo.com" <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>> I missed many shots with the 10D because it wasn't ready; this hasn't
>> happened to me with the 20D yet. The 20D can write to a fast card
>> several times faster than the 10D can.
>
>I'm still recovering from the shock at just how wickedly fast the
>1DMkII is. I mean, the "review" image comes up almost immediately and
>there is barely a blip on the "busy" LED for JPEG images. RAW image
>times are faster on this than a JPEG recording on the 10D. But the
>review/selection user-interface is ghastly (the 10D is much nicer); is
>the 20D like the 10D or something completely different?
Similar, except that you use a nine-position controller to scroll
through the image when you zoom in. Speedwise, the 20D is much faster
than the 10D showing the review. The wait is only about 1/2 second in
the worst of conditions, IME.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
In message <1109717397.725909.37150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"eawckyegcy@yahoo.com" <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>> I missed many shots with the 10D because it wasn't ready; this hasn't
>> happened to me with the 20D yet. The 20D can write to a fast card
>> several times faster than the 10D can.
>
>I'm still recovering from the shock at just how wickedly fast the
>1DMkII is. I mean, the "review" image comes up almost immediately and
>there is barely a blip on the "busy" LED for JPEG images. RAW image
>times are faster on this than a JPEG recording on the 10D. But the
>review/selection user-interface is ghastly (the 10D is much nicer); is
>the 20D like the 10D or something completely different?
Similar, except that you use a nine-position controller to scroll
through the image when you zoom in. Speedwise, the 20D is much faster
than the 10D showing the review. The wait is only about 1/2 second in
the worst of conditions, IME.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>times are faster on this than a JPEG recording on the 10D. But the
>>review/selection user-interface is ghastly (the 10D is much nicer);
is
>>the 20D like the 10D or something completely different?
>
> Similar, except that you use a nine-position controller to scroll
> through the image when you zoom in.
The 10D was nice: push the zoom buttons and can scroll around with the
thumb-wheel. The major wart was the silly "switch directions" button,
but this was something one could live with.
When I first tried this with the 1DMkII, it didn't work. In fact, I
couldn't do much with the camera in the menu or review state until I
figured out that things are activated when you _release_ buttons, not
_press_ them. Ick!
(Release activation ("negative input" as it were) is fine with mice and
clear graphical feedback. For a 7 button camera, where one may be
gloved and not pressing the buttons with complete certainty, a slip can
activate unintended functions. The 10D's interface was completely
"positive"; the worst that could happen is you couldn't press a
button.)
Even worse: image selection is done by pressing and holding the
"select" button. Image scrolling is done by pressing and holding the
"magnifying glass" button in concert with the zoom buttons. After a
few minutes of this, the finger/thumb on your left hand is getting a
bit of a cramp. And interesting things happen when you finger slips
off the button as you are scrolling around etc. Switching from
selection to scrolling with this mode of operation is irking. That
"switch directions" button on the 10D now seems like a decent idea.
Why should I expend effort to maintain camera state when the computer
can just set a bit? Argh.
Like the 10D though, the 1DMkII has a "useless button". The 10D's was
the "jump" thing, which I don't think I ever pressed in about 18 months
of use. On the 1D, it looks like it is the "protect/audio record"
button. Does anyone really "protect" images in-camera? 30 seconds of
poor-quality audio? The marketing department at Canon is running amok.
One wonders at the UI on the 1DsMkII. Maybe all of these cameras are
software-engineered by completely isolated groups in Canon?
> Speedwise, the 20D is much
faster
> than the 10D showing the review. The wait is only about 1/2 second
in
> the worst of conditions, IME.
The 1DMkII is basically the same. One suspects the cameras share a
fair amount of silicon.
JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>times are faster on this than a JPEG recording on the 10D. But the
>>review/selection user-interface is ghastly (the 10D is much nicer);
is
>>the 20D like the 10D or something completely different?
>
> Similar, except that you use a nine-position controller to scroll
> through the image when you zoom in.
The 10D was nice: push the zoom buttons and can scroll around with the
thumb-wheel. The major wart was the silly "switch directions" button,
but this was something one could live with.
When I first tried this with the 1DMkII, it didn't work. In fact, I
couldn't do much with the camera in the menu or review state until I
figured out that things are activated when you _release_ buttons, not
_press_ them. Ick!
(Release activation ("negative input" as it were) is fine with mice and
clear graphical feedback. For a 7 button camera, where one may be
gloved and not pressing the buttons with complete certainty, a slip can
activate unintended functions. The 10D's interface was completely
"positive"; the worst that could happen is you couldn't press a
button.)
Even worse: image selection is done by pressing and holding the
"select" button. Image scrolling is done by pressing and holding the
"magnifying glass" button in concert with the zoom buttons. After a
few minutes of this, the finger/thumb on your left hand is getting a
bit of a cramp. And interesting things happen when you finger slips
off the button as you are scrolling around etc. Switching from
selection to scrolling with this mode of operation is irking. That
"switch directions" button on the 10D now seems like a decent idea.
Why should I expend effort to maintain camera state when the computer
can just set a bit? Argh.
Like the 10D though, the 1DMkII has a "useless button". The 10D's was
the "jump" thing, which I don't think I ever pressed in about 18 months
of use. On the 1D, it looks like it is the "protect/audio record"
button. Does anyone really "protect" images in-camera? 30 seconds of
poor-quality audio? The marketing department at Canon is running amok.
One wonders at the UI on the 1DsMkII. Maybe all of these cameras are
software-engineered by completely isolated groups in Canon?
> Speedwise, the 20D is much
faster
> than the 10D showing the review. The wait is only about 1/2 second
in
> the worst of conditions, IME.
The 1DMkII is basically the same. One suspects the cameras share a
fair amount of silicon.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Kibo informs me that "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> stated that:
>Nope, they're correct, the JPEG buffer is approx. 23 frames, the RAW buffer
>is 6 on the 20D. The RAW buffer on the 10D is 9
Skip, you mostly shoot RAW, don't you? If so, you'd be the ideal person
for me to ask the $64000 question that's making hesitate to switch to
the 20D from the 10D.
The question is: Assuming that I use fast CF cards, does the 20D write
RAW files enough faster than than the 10D, (which writes *very* slowly),
to make up for the smaller shot buffer in RAW mode?
The reason this factor is crucial to me is because I only shoot RAW, &
often fill the buffer on my 10D & have to wait quite a while for it to
flush to disk. My understanding is that unlike the 10D, the 20D chipset
is dual-pipelined, so it can write to the card while you continue to
shoot, & doesn't need as big a buffer. If so, the buffer-size difference
is a complete red-herring, & I'll be no worse off (& most likely better
off) than with my 10D.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Kibo informs me that "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> stated that:
>Nope, they're correct, the JPEG buffer is approx. 23 frames, the RAW buffer
>is 6 on the 20D. The RAW buffer on the 10D is 9
Skip, you mostly shoot RAW, don't you? If so, you'd be the ideal person
for me to ask the $64000 question that's making hesitate to switch to
the 20D from the 10D.
The question is: Assuming that I use fast CF cards, does the 20D write
RAW files enough faster than than the 10D, (which writes *very* slowly),
to make up for the smaller shot buffer in RAW mode?
The reason this factor is crucial to me is because I only shoot RAW, &
often fill the buffer on my 10D & have to wait quite a while for it to
flush to disk. My understanding is that unlike the 10D, the 20D chipset
is dual-pipelined, so it can write to the card while you continue to
shoot, & doesn't need as big a buffer. If so, the buffer-size difference
is a complete red-herring, & I'll be no worse off (& most likely better
off) than with my 10D.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Lionel <nop@alt.net> wrote in
news:hf6b219ut9pbv3ds5fshrr2nfu8eb8tfl6@4ax.com:
> The question is: Assuming that I use fast CF cards, does the 20D write
> RAW files enough faster than than the 10D, (which writes *very*
> slowly), to make up for the smaller shot buffer in RAW mode?
>
> The reason this factor is crucial to me is because I only shoot RAW, &
> often fill the buffer on my 10D & have to wait quite a while for it to
> flush to disk. My understanding is that unlike the 10D, the 20D
> chipset is dual-pipelined, so it can write to the card while you
> continue to shoot, & doesn't need as big a buffer. If so, the
> buffer-size difference is a complete red-herring, & I'll be no worse
> off (& most likely better off) than with my 10D.
The obvious question here is "how do you shoot when you fill the buffer"
If you hold down the shutter release and let the camera take a burst until
it stops then the 10D will give 9 shots in 3 seconds and the 20D will give
6 shots in 1.2 seconds. If you take a shot every 2 or 3 seconds and find
that after 10 - 12 shots the 10D is waiting to write data, then maybe the
20D could beat the 10D.
Of course with the 20D you can always shoot the fast action with JPG and
then it is miles ahead of the 10D.
--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 20-Jan-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Lionel <nop@alt.net> wrote in
news:hf6b219ut9pbv3ds5fshrr2nfu8eb8tfl6@4ax.com:
> The question is: Assuming that I use fast CF cards, does the 20D write
> RAW files enough faster than than the 10D, (which writes *very*
> slowly), to make up for the smaller shot buffer in RAW mode?
>
> The reason this factor is crucial to me is because I only shoot RAW, &
> often fill the buffer on my 10D & have to wait quite a while for it to
> flush to disk. My understanding is that unlike the 10D, the 20D
> chipset is dual-pipelined, so it can write to the card while you
> continue to shoot, & doesn't need as big a buffer. If so, the
> buffer-size difference is a complete red-herring, & I'll be no worse
> off (& most likely better off) than with my 10D.
The obvious question here is "how do you shoot when you fill the buffer"
If you hold down the shutter release and let the camera take a burst until
it stops then the 10D will give 9 shots in 3 seconds and the 20D will give
6 shots in 1.2 seconds. If you take a shot every 2 or 3 seconds and find
that after 10 - 12 shots the 10D is waiting to write data, then maybe the
20D could beat the 10D.
Of course with the 20D you can always shoot the fast action with JPG and
then it is miles ahead of the 10D.
--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 20-Jan-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> wrote in message
news:hf6b219ut9pbv3ds5fshrr2nfu8eb8tfl6@4ax.com...
> Kibo informs me that "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> stated that:
>
>>Nope, they're correct, the JPEG buffer is approx. 23 frames, the RAW
>>buffer
>>is 6 on the 20D. The RAW buffer on the 10D is 9
>
> Skip, you mostly shoot RAW, don't you? If so, you'd be the ideal person
> for me to ask the $64000 question that's making hesitate to switch to
> the 20D from the 10D.
>
> The question is: Assuming that I use fast CF cards, does the 20D write
> RAW files enough faster than than the 10D, (which writes *very* slowly),
> to make up for the smaller shot buffer in RAW mode?
>
> The reason this factor is crucial to me is because I only shoot RAW, &
> often fill the buffer on my 10D & have to wait quite a while for it to
> flush to disk. My understanding is that unlike the 10D, the 20D chipset
> is dual-pipelined, so it can write to the card while you continue to
> shoot, & doesn't need as big a buffer. If so, the buffer-size difference
> is a complete red-herring, & I'll be no worse off (& most likely better
> off) than with my 10D.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Lionel, the only time I shoot RAW any more is when I'm shooting RAW+Jpeg
color/b&w, so the size of the file loading is huge. But the load time seems
much quicker than when I shot RAW only with the 10D and the D30, which
seemed glacial. The load times don't seem a lot longer than Jpeg only,
frankly.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> wrote in message
news:hf6b219ut9pbv3ds5fshrr2nfu8eb8tfl6@4ax.com...
> Kibo informs me that "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> stated that:
>
>>Nope, they're correct, the JPEG buffer is approx. 23 frames, the RAW
>>buffer
>>is 6 on the 20D. The RAW buffer on the 10D is 9
>
> Skip, you mostly shoot RAW, don't you? If so, you'd be the ideal person
> for me to ask the $64000 question that's making hesitate to switch to
> the 20D from the 10D.
>
> The question is: Assuming that I use fast CF cards, does the 20D write
> RAW files enough faster than than the 10D, (which writes *very* slowly),
> to make up for the smaller shot buffer in RAW mode?
>
> The reason this factor is crucial to me is because I only shoot RAW, &
> often fill the buffer on my 10D & have to wait quite a while for it to
> flush to disk. My understanding is that unlike the 10D, the 20D chipset
> is dual-pipelined, so it can write to the card while you continue to
> shoot, & doesn't need as big a buffer. If so, the buffer-size difference
> is a complete red-herring, & I'll be no worse off (& most likely better
> off) than with my 10D.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Lionel, the only time I shoot RAW any more is when I'm shooting RAW+Jpeg
color/b&w, so the size of the file loading is huge. But the load time seems
much quicker than when I shot RAW only with the 10D and the D30, which
seemed glacial. The load times don't seem a lot longer than Jpeg only,
frankly.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Kibo informs me that JPS@no.komm stated that:
>The 10D buffers 9 images vs the 20D's 9, but it takes forever to empty
>the buffer and make room for more, especially if the card is almost
>full. In practice, the 20D is much more responsive to rapid shooting.
>
>I missed many shots with the 10D because it wasn't ready; this hasn't
>happened to me with the 20D yet. The 20D can write to a fast card
>several times faster than the 10D can.
Thanks for the info, John. From my reading of the spec's it sounded like
that was the theory behind the change to the buffer size, & I was hoping
that that would be the case. It's very reassuring to hear someone
confirm that it works that way in practice.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Kibo informs me that JPS@no.komm stated that:
>The 10D buffers 9 images vs the 20D's 9, but it takes forever to empty
>the buffer and make room for more, especially if the card is almost
>full. In practice, the 20D is much more responsive to rapid shooting.
>
>I missed many shots with the 10D because it wasn't ready; this hasn't
>happened to me with the 20D yet. The 20D can write to a fast card
>several times faster than the 10D can.
Thanks for the info, John. From my reading of the spec's it sounded like
that was the theory behind the change to the buffer size, & I was hoping
that that would be the case. It's very reassuring to hear someone
confirm that it works that way in practice.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
In message <zLbVd.43563$xt.6940@fed1read07>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>Nope, they're correct, the JPEG buffer is approx. 23 frames, the RAW buffer
>is 6 on the 20D. The RAW buffer on the 10D is 9
So, you think there is a one-RAW-image buffer before the buffer of which
we speak?
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
In message <zLbVd.43563$xt.6940@fed1read07>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>Nope, they're correct, the JPEG buffer is approx. 23 frames, the RAW buffer
>is 6 on the 20D. The RAW buffer on the 10D is 9
So, you think there is a one-RAW-image buffer before the buffer of which
we speak?
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
In message <dmp921p6j97n8dr22mf1v4ogo03doqpo6p@4ax.com>,
JPS@no.komm wrote:
>The 10D buffers 9 images vs the 20D's 9
I wish I could say, "now if a six turned out to be nine, I don't mind, I
don't mind", but I do mind. That second 9 should be a 6.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
In message <dmp921p6j97n8dr22mf1v4ogo03doqpo6p@4ax.com>,
JPS@no.komm wrote:
>The 10D buffers 9 images vs the 20D's 9
I wish I could say, "now if a six turned out to be nine, I don't mind, I
don't mind", but I do mind. That second 9 should be a 6.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
In message <1109818444.475900.311540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"eawckyegcy@yahoo.com" <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Like the 10D though, the 1DMkII has a "useless button". The 10D's was
>the "jump" thing, which I don't think I ever pressed in about 18 months
>of use.
The jump button I used for scrolling through the thumbnail screen a
screen at a time, otherwise, IIRC, it just pushed and popped one image
through the array.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
In message <1109818444.475900.311540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"eawckyegcy@yahoo.com" <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Like the 10D though, the 1DMkII has a "useless button". The 10D's was
>the "jump" thing, which I don't think I ever pressed in about 18 months
>of use.
The jump button I used for scrolling through the thumbnail screen a
screen at a time, otherwise, IIRC, it just pushed and popped one image
through the array.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Test Time
20D with 17-40 lens attached, set to ISO 100 and RAW (no JPEG), camera
pre-focused, no autofocus between shots.
With the camera set to continuous shooting I was able to take a full speed 6
shot burst before the buffer filled but it emptied at a rate that allowed me
to keep on going indefinitely at around 1 shot per second.
Shooting semi-automatic at around 2 shots per second I was able to go for 15
shots before the rate slowed.
Geoff Bryant
"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> wrote in message
news:hf6b219ut9pbv3ds5fshrr2nfu8eb8tfl6@4ax.com...
> Kibo informs me that "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> stated that:
>
>>Nope, they're correct, the JPEG buffer is approx. 23 frames, the RAW
>>buffer
>>is 6 on the 20D. The RAW buffer on the 10D is 9
>
> Skip, you mostly shoot RAW, don't you? If so, you'd be the ideal person
> for me to ask the $64000 question that's making hesitate to switch to
> the 20D from the 10D.
>
> The question is: Assuming that I use fast CF cards, does the 20D write
> RAW files enough faster than than the 10D, (which writes *very* slowly),
> to make up for the smaller shot buffer in RAW mode?
>
> The reason this factor is crucial to me is because I only shoot RAW, &
> often fill the buffer on my 10D & have to wait quite a while for it to
> flush to disk. My understanding is that unlike the 10D, the 20D chipset
> is dual-pipelined, so it can write to the card while you continue to
> shoot, & doesn't need as big a buffer. If so, the buffer-size difference
> is a complete red-herring, & I'll be no worse off (& most likely better
> off) than with my 10D.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Test Time
20D with 17-40 lens attached, set to ISO 100 and RAW (no JPEG), camera
pre-focused, no autofocus between shots.
With the camera set to continuous shooting I was able to take a full speed 6
shot burst before the buffer filled but it emptied at a rate that allowed me
to keep on going indefinitely at around 1 shot per second.
Shooting semi-automatic at around 2 shots per second I was able to go for 15
shots before the rate slowed.
Geoff Bryant
"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> wrote in message
news:hf6b219ut9pbv3ds5fshrr2nfu8eb8tfl6@4ax.com...
> Kibo informs me that "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> stated that:
>
>>Nope, they're correct, the JPEG buffer is approx. 23 frames, the RAW
>>buffer
>>is 6 on the 20D. The RAW buffer on the 10D is 9
>
> Skip, you mostly shoot RAW, don't you? If so, you'd be the ideal person
> for me to ask the $64000 question that's making hesitate to switch to
> the 20D from the 10D.
>
> The question is: Assuming that I use fast CF cards, does the 20D write
> RAW files enough faster than than the 10D, (which writes *very* slowly),
> to make up for the smaller shot buffer in RAW mode?
>
> The reason this factor is crucial to me is because I only shoot RAW, &
> often fill the buffer on my 10D & have to wait quite a while for it to
> flush to disk. My understanding is that unlike the 10D, the 20D chipset
> is dual-pipelined, so it can write to the card while you continue to
> shoot, & doesn't need as big a buffer. If so, the buffer-size difference
> is a complete red-herring, & I'll be no worse off (& most likely better
> off) than with my 10D.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Kibo informs me that "Geoff Bryant" <geoffbryant@xtra.co.nz> stated
that:
>Test Time
Great stuff.![:)]( ":)")
[...]
>With the camera set to continuous shooting I was able to take a full speed 6
>shot burst before the buffer filled but it emptied at a rate that allowed me
>to keep on going indefinitely at around 1 shot per second.
What sort of CF card were you using?
>Shooting semi-automatic at around 2 shots per second I was able to go for 15
>shots before the rate slowed.
Thanks for doing the test, Geoff, that's what I wanted to know.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Kibo informs me that "Geoff Bryant" <geoffbryant@xtra.co.nz> stated
that:
>Test Time
Great stuff.
[...]
>With the camera set to continuous shooting I was able to take a full speed 6
>shot burst before the buffer filled but it emptied at a rate that allowed me
>to keep on going indefinitely at around 1 shot per second.
What sort of CF card were you using?
>Shooting semi-automatic at around 2 shots per second I was able to go for 15
>shots before the rate slowed.
Thanks for doing the test, Geoff, that's what I wanted to know.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
The card was a Sandisk Ultra II 2 GB, which is 60x, I believe.
"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> wrote in message
news:tfoc215n11klub4m0l3csdauf65jlhq28a@4ax.com...
> Kibo informs me that "Geoff Bryant" <geoffbryant@xtra.co.nz> stated
> that:
>
>>Test Time
>
> Great stuff.![:)]( ":)")
>
> [...]
>>With the camera set to continuous shooting I was able to take a full speed
>>6
>>shot burst before the buffer filled but it emptied at a rate that allowed
>>me
>>to keep on going indefinitely at around 1 shot per second.
>
> What sort of CF card were you using?
>
>>Shooting semi-automatic at around 2 shots per second I was able to go for
>>15
>>shots before the rate slowed.
>
> Thanks for doing the test, Geoff, that's what I wanted to know.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
The card was a Sandisk Ultra II 2 GB, which is 60x, I believe.
"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> wrote in message
news:tfoc215n11klub4m0l3csdauf65jlhq28a@4ax.com...
> Kibo informs me that "Geoff Bryant" <geoffbryant@xtra.co.nz> stated
> that:
>
>>Test Time
>
> Great stuff.
>
> [...]
>>With the camera set to continuous shooting I was able to take a full speed
>>6
>>shot burst before the buffer filled but it emptied at a rate that allowed
>>me
>>to keep on going indefinitely at around 1 shot per second.
>
> What sort of CF card were you using?
>
>>Shooting semi-automatic at around 2 shots per second I was able to go for
>>15
>>shots before the rate slowed.
>
> Thanks for doing the test, Geoff, that's what I wanted to know.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
"Geoff Bryant" <geoffbryant@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:JguVd.6145$1S4.654956@news.xtra.co.nz...
> The card was a Sandisk Ultra II 2 GB, which is 60x, I believe.
Be careful about drawing conclusions, because card designs may change:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=600...
The "New" Sandisk Ultra II CF cards are reported to be significantly
slower than the "old" ones.
Bart
"Geoff Bryant" <geoffbryant@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:JguVd.6145$1S4.654956@news.xtra.co.nz...
> The card was a Sandisk Ultra II 2 GB, which is 60x, I believe.
Be careful about drawing conclusions, because card designs may change:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=600...
The "New" Sandisk Ultra II CF cards are reported to be significantly
slower than the "old" ones.
Bart
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Kibo informs me that "Geoff Bryant" <geoffbryant@xtra.co.nz> stated
that:
>The card was a Sandisk Ultra II 2 GB, which is 60x, I believe.
Thanks Geoff.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Kibo informs me that "Geoff Bryant" <geoffbryant@xtra.co.nz> stated
that:
>The card was a Sandisk Ultra II 2 GB, which is 60x, I believe.
Thanks Geoff.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Kibo informs me that MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> stated that:
>The obvious question here is "how do you shoot when you fill the buffer"
Typically, a bunch of 2-3 shot bursts.
>If you hold down the shutter release and let the camera take a burst until
>it stops then the 10D will give 9 shots in 3 seconds and the 20D will give
>6 shots in 1.2 seconds. If you take a shot every 2 or 3 seconds and find
>that after 10 - 12 shots the 10D is waiting to write data, then maybe the
>20D could beat the 10D.
The latter is probably a fair description, so it looks like I can expect
a net improvement.
>Of course with the 20D you can always shoot the fast action with JPG and
>then it is miles ahead of the 10D.
Ew - no thanks.![;)]( ";)")
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Kibo informs me that MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> stated that:
>The obvious question here is "how do you shoot when you fill the buffer"
Typically, a bunch of 2-3 shot bursts.
>If you hold down the shutter release and let the camera take a burst until
>it stops then the 10D will give 9 shots in 3 seconds and the 20D will give
>6 shots in 1.2 seconds. If you take a shot every 2 or 3 seconds and find
>that after 10 - 12 shots the 10D is waiting to write data, then maybe the
>20D could beat the 10D.
The latter is probably a fair description, so it looks like I can expect
a net improvement.
>Of course with the 20D you can always shoot the fast action with JPG and
>then it is miles ahead of the 10D.
Ew - no thanks.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Hi Lionel,
I had the 10D for 9 months (4600+ pics) and have had the 20D for the last 3
(1000+ shots). I used the 10D for a lot of travel stuff and found it
fantastic (superb image quality, colour rendition, focus, etc.). However, I
also shoot a lot of sports stuff and here it was woefully inadequate
(compared to my previous EOS-1's).
I always shoot RAW and, initially, shot max jpg also. However, the 10D has a
retarded 'embedded jpg' format that means the camera shoots 1 file
containing both the RAW & jpg images. (The 20D is a huge improvement here
writing 2 completely separate files far quicker than the 10D managed 1).
The 10D was is incredibly slow to write (even to Sandisk Extreme CF cards)
and one frequently had to wait several seconds for the 'Camera Busy' to
disappear. On several occasions (shooting Rugby matches) I filled the camera
buffer & could only get off the odd shot very slowly. Eventually, I gave up
& just waited for the buffer to clear fully (not ideal).
However, far worse was the autofocus performance. I got sick to death when
play was 'coming towards me' of getting the player, or runner, just behind
the one the autofocus point was selecting in focus and (using f/2.8) the one
selected out of focus. Also, it was extremely frustrating, with laterally
moving subjects, never being sure exactly what the camera was capturing due
to the delay between pressing the button & when the camera seemed to
'decide' to capture the image. I tried adapting & trying to compensate for
the 'lag' by anticipating the trigger point (hardly ideal). Eventually, I
found the camera was undermining my confidence in being able to capture what
I wanted and was in serious wrangling with my other half re. trying to
justify ditching the 10D for an EOS-1Ds II. Then, Canon announced the 20D
and on paper it seemed to be addressing most of these needs (and others
besides) and as it was far more affordable than the EOS-1Ds II I decided to
try it out.
What a revelation!
Landscape / Travel stuff - no diff (except the larger image size allows for
additional cropping).
Sports - back to being no problem ;o))
The 20D has not once exhibited the 10D's trait of picking up the trailing
person & has resolutely captured what is selected.
The 'lag' seems far less on lateral moving subjects (though there is still a
little versus the old EOS-1's).
So problem's solved but the 20D had a couple of (unexpected) bonuses up it's
sleeve...
1) The sheer speed the camera can write to the memory card.
This things is just amazing & it makes a mockery of comparison of supposed
buffer levels. With quick memory this things seems to be clearing the buffer
almost as fast as you can write to it. In 3 months I have not hit the buffer
ceiling and had to pause shooting in live matches. I've never seen the
'camera busy' sign for more than a fleeting second even after shooting a
sequence of consecutive shots one can hit the review button & the camera
will display the shot images even whilst still writing to the card.
In a more 'artificial' test (to try & put some numbers to this) using a
Sandisk Extreme CF card writing simultaneous RAW + Max JPG...
The 20D shoots 6 shots before hitting the buffer limit indicating 'camera
busy' - the red write light completely goes out 11 secs later. Pausing 5
secs (rather than the 11 required to fully clear the buffer) the 20D will
allow a burst of 4 shots before again hitting the buffer (whilst still
writing the rest of the previous data to card).
By comparison, the 10D shooting just RAW (no jpg) managed 9 shots before
hitting the buffer limit but then took 55 secs for the write light to go
off! Pausing 5 secs allows only 2 further shots before hitting the buffer
again.
2) Far lower noise levels.
10D - quite impressive up to ISO 400 (compared to chemical); 800 - 'usable'
at a push; 1600 - Colour 'muddied' (rescuable in Photoshop or if converted
to B&W)
20D - About 1 1/2 step improvement (i.e. ISO 800 better than 10D at ISO 400
but ISO 1600 slightly more noisy than 10D at ISO 400)
This makes a huge advantage shooting action stuff indoors and as the colour
balance at 1600 is still great can eliminate the need for the use of flash
in more 'delicate' situations. It has enabled one to shoot without flash
during actual matches (Tennis, badminton, etc.) where the use of flash would
have been prohibited because of distracting the players.
Regards
DM
"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> wrote in message
news:n405215qk1vsrdkscmore0h90nda4svshq@4ax.com...
> Hi all,
>
> Can anyone here who's upgraded from the 10D to the 20D comment on the
> improvement (if any) in AF speed / accuracy & RAW buffering?
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Lionel,
I had the 10D for 9 months (4600+ pics) and have had the 20D for the last 3
(1000+ shots). I used the 10D for a lot of travel stuff and found it
fantastic (superb image quality, colour rendition, focus, etc.). However, I
also shoot a lot of sports stuff and here it was woefully inadequate
(compared to my previous EOS-1's).
I always shoot RAW and, initially, shot max jpg also. However, the 10D has a
retarded 'embedded jpg' format that means the camera shoots 1 file
containing both the RAW & jpg images. (The 20D is a huge improvement here
writing 2 completely separate files far quicker than the 10D managed 1).
The 10D was is incredibly slow to write (even to Sandisk Extreme CF cards)
and one frequently had to wait several seconds for the 'Camera Busy' to
disappear. On several occasions (shooting Rugby matches) I filled the camera
buffer & could only get off the odd shot very slowly. Eventually, I gave up
& just waited for the buffer to clear fully (not ideal).
However, far worse was the autofocus performance. I got sick to death when
play was 'coming towards me' of getting the player, or runner, just behind
the one the autofocus point was selecting in focus and (using f/2.8) the one
selected out of focus. Also, it was extremely frustrating, with laterally
moving subjects, never being sure exactly what the camera was capturing due
to the delay between pressing the button & when the camera seemed to
'decide' to capture the image. I tried adapting & trying to compensate for
the 'lag' by anticipating the trigger point (hardly ideal). Eventually, I
found the camera was undermining my confidence in being able to capture what
I wanted and was in serious wrangling with my other half re. trying to
justify ditching the 10D for an EOS-1Ds II. Then, Canon announced the 20D
and on paper it seemed to be addressing most of these needs (and others
besides) and as it was far more affordable than the EOS-1Ds II I decided to
try it out.
What a revelation!
Landscape / Travel stuff - no diff (except the larger image size allows for
additional cropping).
Sports - back to being no problem ;o))
The 20D has not once exhibited the 10D's trait of picking up the trailing
person & has resolutely captured what is selected.
The 'lag' seems far less on lateral moving subjects (though there is still a
little versus the old EOS-1's).
So problem's solved but the 20D had a couple of (unexpected) bonuses up it's
sleeve...
1) The sheer speed the camera can write to the memory card.
This things is just amazing & it makes a mockery of comparison of supposed
buffer levels. With quick memory this things seems to be clearing the buffer
almost as fast as you can write to it. In 3 months I have not hit the buffer
ceiling and had to pause shooting in live matches. I've never seen the
'camera busy' sign for more than a fleeting second even after shooting a
sequence of consecutive shots one can hit the review button & the camera
will display the shot images even whilst still writing to the card.
In a more 'artificial' test (to try & put some numbers to this) using a
Sandisk Extreme CF card writing simultaneous RAW + Max JPG...
The 20D shoots 6 shots before hitting the buffer limit indicating 'camera
busy' - the red write light completely goes out 11 secs later. Pausing 5
secs (rather than the 11 required to fully clear the buffer) the 20D will
allow a burst of 4 shots before again hitting the buffer (whilst still
writing the rest of the previous data to card).
By comparison, the 10D shooting just RAW (no jpg) managed 9 shots before
hitting the buffer limit but then took 55 secs for the write light to go
off! Pausing 5 secs allows only 2 further shots before hitting the buffer
again.
2) Far lower noise levels.
10D - quite impressive up to ISO 400 (compared to chemical); 800 - 'usable'
at a push; 1600 - Colour 'muddied' (rescuable in Photoshop or if converted
to B&W)
20D - About 1 1/2 step improvement (i.e. ISO 800 better than 10D at ISO 400
but ISO 1600 slightly more noisy than 10D at ISO 400)
This makes a huge advantage shooting action stuff indoors and as the colour
balance at 1600 is still great can eliminate the need for the use of flash
in more 'delicate' situations. It has enabled one to shoot without flash
during actual matches (Tennis, badminton, etc.) where the use of flash would
have been prohibited because of distracting the players.
Regards
DM
"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> wrote in message
news:n405215qk1vsrdkscmore0h90nda4svshq@4ax.com...
> Hi all,
>
> Can anyone here who's upgraded from the 10D to the 20D comment on the
> improvement (if any) in AF speed / accuracy & RAW buffering?
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:AtoWd.29148$8B3.12816@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<SNIP>
> Sports - back to being no problem ;o))
>
> The 20D has not once exhibited the 10D's trait of picking up the trailing
> person & has resolutely captured what is selected.
> The 'lag' seems far less on lateral moving subjects (though there is still
> a little versus the old EOS-1's).
>
DM,
Just out of curiosity...
When you are shooting sports, do you use all 9 AF points and trust that the
camera will sort out your main subject, or do you use just the center spot?
I'm still learning the best ways to use the 20D in given situations and I
don't have any big glass (yet) but I hope to very soon and would appreciate
any thoughts you'd care to share on getting the best focus performance when
trying to single out one subject at long distances.
Regards,
Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:AtoWd.29148$8B3.12816@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<SNIP>
> Sports - back to being no problem ;o))
>
> The 20D has not once exhibited the 10D's trait of picking up the trailing
> person & has resolutely captured what is selected.
> The 'lag' seems far less on lateral moving subjects (though there is still
> a little versus the old EOS-1's).
>
DM,
Just out of curiosity...
When you are shooting sports, do you use all 9 AF points and trust that the
camera will sort out your main subject, or do you use just the center spot?
I'm still learning the best ways to use the 20D in given situations and I
don't have any big glass (yet) but I hope to very soon and would appreciate
any thoughts you'd care to share on getting the best focus performance when
trying to single out one subject at long distances.
Regards,
Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Jay,
At f/2.8 the depth of field is usually so shallow that I use the centre AF
point to select the subject I want and compose / crop around it.
I have tried using all 9AF points and letting the camera decide - but the
trouble is the camera is happy when it has any of the AF points registering
'in focus'.
Therefore (if you consider a rugby scrum, tightly cropped) the ideal photo
might consist of having one of the faces within the scrum in focus (thus
centering the viewers attention to the emotion & exertion of the action).
However, the camera would equally be happy to have the surrounding legs &
boots in focus and miss the focus on the face in question.
Regards
DM
"Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ToqWd.149210$Yu.14761@fed1read01...
> "DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:AtoWd.29148$8B3.12816@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> <SNIP>
>
>> Sports - back to being no problem ;o))
>>
>> The 20D has not once exhibited the 10D's trait of picking up the trailing
>> person & has resolutely captured what is selected.
>> The 'lag' seems far less on lateral moving subjects (though there is
>> still a little versus the old EOS-1's).
>>
>
> DM,
>
> Just out of curiosity...
>
> When you are shooting sports, do you use all 9 AF points and trust that
> the camera will sort out your main subject, or do you use just the center
> spot?
>
> I'm still learning the best ways to use the 20D in given situations and I
> don't have any big glass (yet) but I hope to very soon and would
> appreciate any thoughts you'd care to share on getting the best focus
> performance when trying to single out one subject at long distances.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jay Beckman
> Chandler, AZ
>
Jay,
At f/2.8 the depth of field is usually so shallow that I use the centre AF
point to select the subject I want and compose / crop around it.
I have tried using all 9AF points and letting the camera decide - but the
trouble is the camera is happy when it has any of the AF points registering
'in focus'.
Therefore (if you consider a rugby scrum, tightly cropped) the ideal photo
might consist of having one of the faces within the scrum in focus (thus
centering the viewers attention to the emotion & exertion of the action).
However, the camera would equally be happy to have the surrounding legs &
boots in focus and miss the focus on the face in question.
Regards
DM
"Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ToqWd.149210$Yu.14761@fed1read01...
> "DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:AtoWd.29148$8B3.12816@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> <SNIP>
>
>> Sports - back to being no problem ;o))
>>
>> The 20D has not once exhibited the 10D's trait of picking up the trailing
>> person & has resolutely captured what is selected.
>> The 'lag' seems far less on lateral moving subjects (though there is
>> still a little versus the old EOS-1's).
>>
>
> DM,
>
> Just out of curiosity...
>
> When you are shooting sports, do you use all 9 AF points and trust that
> the camera will sort out your main subject, or do you use just the center
> spot?
>
> I'm still learning the best ways to use the 20D in given situations and I
> don't have any big glass (yet) but I hope to very soon and would
> appreciate any thoughts you'd care to share on getting the best focus
> performance when trying to single out one subject at long distances.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jay Beckman
> Chandler, AZ
>
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news![:p]( ":p")
NsWd.29335$8B3.29254@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Jay,
>
> At f/2.8 the depth of field is usually so shallow that I use the centre AF
> point to select the subject I want and compose / crop around it.
>
> I have tried using all 9AF points and letting the camera decide - but the
> trouble is the camera is happy when it has any of the AF points
> registering 'in focus'.
>
> Therefore (if you consider a rugby scrum, tightly cropped) the ideal photo
> might consist of having one of the faces within the scrum in focus (thus
> centering the viewers attention to the emotion & exertion of the action).
> However, the camera would equally be happy to have the surrounding legs &
> boots in focus and miss the focus on the face in question.
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
Thanks for taking the time to respond...
Jay
"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news
NsWd.29335$8B3.29254@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...> Jay,
>
> At f/2.8 the depth of field is usually so shallow that I use the centre AF
> point to select the subject I want and compose / crop around it.
>
> I have tried using all 9AF points and letting the camera decide - but the
> trouble is the camera is happy when it has any of the AF points
> registering 'in focus'.
>
> Therefore (if you consider a rugby scrum, tightly cropped) the ideal photo
> might consist of having one of the faces within the scrum in focus (thus
> centering the viewers attention to the emotion & exertion of the action).
> However, the camera would equally be happy to have the surrounding legs &
> boots in focus and miss the focus on the face in question.
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
Thanks for taking the time to respond...
Jay
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
> Wow, that's succinct. But wrong. We owned a 10D, and have two 20Ds, and
> the only thing the 10D had an edge on was RAW buffer (why Canon reduced that
> is a mystery),
They did not necessarily.
(all numbers from dpreview.com)
9 * 6.3 Megapixel ~= 6.9 * 8.2 Megapixel.
9 * 6.6MB ~= 6* 9.96MB (10,200KB RAW+L/F).
If they use the same amount of RAM, then you'd only be able to
buffer 6 full RAW + JPEG images.
And if they went from a fixed-space-based to a used-space-based
buffering -- which they did, as the 10D can only buffer 9 JPEGs
or 9 RAWs, you'd see:
9 * 6.6MB ~= 6 * 9.96 MB ~= 22 * 2.64 MB (2,700 KB)
and thus you can buffer 22 Large/Fine JPEGs --- more if you can
write to the card when shooting (which the 10D didn't, according
to dpreview.com, even when only at half-trigger, but the 20D
apparently does). Thus some cards and subjects can do a lot more
than 'just' 22 JPEGs.
So by my guess they simply didn't give it more RAM to go with
the larger sensor, but used it as normal people would (I think
the way the 10D did is a quick, but very wastful way for JPEGs
to be buffered). So you get vast improvements for JPEGs (and
could get even more with the 10D, if the hardware and firmware
supported it), but you suffer slightly on RAW.
-Wolfgang
Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
> Wow, that's succinct. But wrong. We owned a 10D, and have two 20Ds, and
> the only thing the 10D had an edge on was RAW buffer (why Canon reduced that
> is a mystery),
They did not necessarily.
(all numbers from dpreview.com)
9 * 6.3 Megapixel ~= 6.9 * 8.2 Megapixel.
9 * 6.6MB ~= 6* 9.96MB (10,200KB RAW+L/F).
If they use the same amount of RAM, then you'd only be able to
buffer 6 full RAW + JPEG images.
And if they went from a fixed-space-based to a used-space-based
buffering -- which they did, as the 10D can only buffer 9 JPEGs
or 9 RAWs, you'd see:
9 * 6.6MB ~= 6 * 9.96 MB ~= 22 * 2.64 MB (2,700 KB)
and thus you can buffer 22 Large/Fine JPEGs --- more if you can
write to the card when shooting (which the 10D didn't, according
to dpreview.com, even when only at half-trigger, but the 20D
apparently does). Thus some cards and subjects can do a lot more
than 'just' 22 JPEGs.
So by my guess they simply didn't give it more RAM to go with
the larger sensor, but used it as normal people would (I think
the way the 10D did is a quick, but very wastful way for JPEGs
to be buffered). So you get vast improvements for JPEGs (and
could get even more with the 10D, if the hardware and firmware
supported it), but you suffer slightly on RAW.
-Wolfgang
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:5aj1g2-tf2.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
> Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Wow, that's succinct. But wrong. We owned a 10D, and have two 20Ds, and
>> the only thing the 10D had an edge on was RAW buffer (why Canon reduced
>> that
>> is a mystery),
>
> They did not necessarily.
> (all numbers from dpreview.com)
>
> 9 * 6.3 Megapixel ~= 6.9 * 8.2 Megapixel.
> 9 * 6.6MB ~= 6* 9.96MB (10,200KB RAW+L/F).
>
> If they use the same amount of RAM, then you'd only be able to
> buffer 6 full RAW + JPEG images.
>
> And if they went from a fixed-space-based to a used-space-based
> buffering -- which they did, as the 10D can only buffer 9 JPEGs
> or 9 RAWs, you'd see:
> 9 * 6.6MB ~= 6 * 9.96 MB ~= 22 * 2.64 MB (2,700 KB)
> and thus you can buffer 22 Large/Fine JPEGs --- more if you can
> write to the card when shooting (which the 10D didn't, according
> to dpreview.com, even when only at half-trigger, but the 20D
> apparently does). Thus some cards and subjects can do a lot more
> than 'just' 22 JPEGs.
>
>
> So by my guess they simply didn't give it more RAM to go with
> the larger sensor, but used it as normal people would (I think
> the way the 10D did is a quick, but very wastful way for JPEGs
> to be buffered). So you get vast improvements for JPEGs (and
> could get even more with the 10D, if the hardware and firmware
> supported it), but you suffer slightly on RAW.
>
> -Wolfgang
That makes sense. I think... ;-)
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:5aj1g2-tf2.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
> Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Wow, that's succinct. But wrong. We owned a 10D, and have two 20Ds, and
>> the only thing the 10D had an edge on was RAW buffer (why Canon reduced
>> that
>> is a mystery),
>
> They did not necessarily.
> (all numbers from dpreview.com)
>
> 9 * 6.3 Megapixel ~= 6.9 * 8.2 Megapixel.
> 9 * 6.6MB ~= 6* 9.96MB (10,200KB RAW+L/F).
>
> If they use the same amount of RAM, then you'd only be able to
> buffer 6 full RAW + JPEG images.
>
> And if they went from a fixed-space-based to a used-space-based
> buffering -- which they did, as the 10D can only buffer 9 JPEGs
> or 9 RAWs, you'd see:
> 9 * 6.6MB ~= 6 * 9.96 MB ~= 22 * 2.64 MB (2,700 KB)
> and thus you can buffer 22 Large/Fine JPEGs --- more if you can
> write to the card when shooting (which the 10D didn't, according
> to dpreview.com, even when only at half-trigger, but the 20D
> apparently does). Thus some cards and subjects can do a lot more
> than 'just' 22 JPEGs.
>
>
> So by my guess they simply didn't give it more RAM to go with
> the larger sensor, but used it as normal people would (I think
> the way the 10D did is a quick, but very wastful way for JPEGs
> to be buffered). So you get vast improvements for JPEGs (and
> could get even more with the 10D, if the hardware and firmware
> supported it), but you suffer slightly on RAW.
>
> -Wolfgang
That makes sense. I think... ;-)
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
[useless button]
> On the 1D, it looks like it is the "protect/audio record"
> button. Does anyone really "protect" images in-camera? 30 seconds of
> poor-quality audio?
I sure would like to audio-annotate on the 20D. Stuff like where
exactly I photographed something, or the title of the picture
(if it comes to mind). Currently I use a P&S camera for that,
which is just more stuff to handle and somewhat hampering in the
shooting workflow.
-Wolfgang
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
[useless button]
> On the 1D, it looks like it is the "protect/audio record"
> button. Does anyone really "protect" images in-camera? 30 seconds of
> poor-quality audio?
I sure would like to audio-annotate on the 20D. Stuff like where
exactly I photographed something, or the title of the picture
(if it comes to mind). Currently I use a P&S camera for that,
which is just more stuff to handle and somewhat hampering in the
shooting workflow.
-Wolfgang
Related ressources:
- ForumNeed Advice: D100 vs . 10D vs . N70s - Which is the Best Buy?
- ForumCanon 20D Low Noise?
- ForumCanon 20D & DRXT Sensor
- Forumcanon 20D - soft images
- ForumCanon 20D + Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Recommend..
- ForumCanon 20D with 17-85mm - User comments pls
- ForumD70 vs . 20D
- ForumNikon d70s vs EOS 20d
- ForumExposure problem with 420EX and 20D - please help :-(
- Forum20D or 5D
- Forum20D RAW or JPEG
- ForumWww kodak com/go/cameras
- More resources
Read discussions in other Digital Camera categories
!
